Reply With Quote
He's right Fuzzy. You are a top rate idiot. Just because you have Masters Degrees in Bull and Articulation, doesn't mean you still aren't an idiot.
And you cannot articulate an argument to save your life.
Most of the time you copy and paste things that have les that sound like the argument you want to make.
It's like this most recent line of thought. What happened to you having respect for BEST? Now I see you pimping this guy and pointing out how he has been critical of BEST's methods and attention to detail. Which is it?
This type of thing why I call you a sophist.
*Note: this is how you make an argument*
When we were talking about the BEST study you made lip service to respecting their work. It's pretty obvious that with this recent line of argument that you were disingenuous.
I can only guess at what your motives were but I am rather confident guessing that it was to give yourself some credence as an objective skeptic. This confidence is consistent with your deception as to the source of your graph which again you claimed was from BEST early this year.
What is clear is that you will make any argument or cite anything that you think makes the argument that climate change is either nonexistent or insignificant. That is the embodiment of sophistry.
He's right Fuzzy. You are a top rate idiot. Just because you have Masters Degrees in Bull and Articulation, doesn't mean you still aren't an idiot.
Sure thing, capacitor. Empiricism versus posturing.
Here's how AGW denial works, exemplified by corps paying academics to be pros utes.
Is the Natural Gas Industry Buying Academics
Last week the University of Texas provost announced [1] he would reexamine a report by a UT professor that said fracking was safe for groundwater after the revelation that the professor pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Texas natural gas developer. It's the latest fusillade in the ongoing battle [2] over the basic facts of fracking in America.
Texans aren't the only ones having their fracking conversations shaped by industry-funded research. Ohioans got their first taste [3] last week of the latest public-relations campaign by the energy policy wing of the US Chamber of Commerce. It's called "Shale Works for US," and it aims to spend millions on advertising and public events to sell Ohioans on the idea that fracking is a surefire way to yank the state out of recession.
The campaign is loaded with rosy employment statistics [4], which can be traced to an April report [5] authored by professors at three major Ohio universities and funded by, you guessed it, the natural gas industry. The report paints a bright future for fracking in Ohio as a job creator.
One coauthor of the study, Robert Chase, is prominent enough within the state's natural gas universe that his case was recently taken up [6] by the Ohio Ethics Commission, whose chairman called Chase [7] "more than a passing participant in the operations of the Ohio oil and gas industry" and questioned his potential conflicts of interest. As landowners in natural-gas-rich states like Texas and Ohio struggle to decipher conflicting reports about the safety of fracking, Chase is a piece in what environmental and academic watchdogs call a growing puzzle of industry-funded fracking research with poor disclosure and dubious objectivity.
"It's hard to find someone who's truly independent and doesn't have at least one iron in the fire," said Ohio oil and gas lease attorney Mark F. Okey. "It's a good ol' boys network and they like to take care of their own."
http://www.motherjones.com/print/187171
Oh frack.
Will you please keep that topic in the proper thread.
fracking supporters are paid to lie just like AGW deniers are paid by the corporations to lie.
There are no deniers here. Not that I've seen.
Muller's solution to global warming?
Clean fracking.
I ignored your post because I don't have much time to read things over the net few days other than when I'm on the train. If you think a NASA study that you misinterpret is somehow shattering AGW, GOOD FOR YOU!
What do you think I misinterpreted?
at WC acting like he has any independent credibility.
He does not know the properties of the parts he changes and we are supposed to guess what he misinterpreted?
WC you are even worse than Darrin at articulating an argument. Posturing that you made a point when you cannot even articulate what it is is not compelling to anyone.
People just want to and about putting the blame and cause of global warming on humans yet those same people offer no solutions or answers to stopping/slowing down/reducing climate change. You can't explain that.
Yeah obviously there have been no proposals to curb emissions or deforestation.
In Kyoto and Copenhagen they just talked about hentai.
Again, why do the so-called champions of fighting climate change just and moan about evil humanity's role in it when they should be offering up solutions and feedback on how to counter the horrible phenomenon that is killing polar bears because evil humans use air planes? I have no respect for those types of people.
I guess they put the O2 sensors in cars for fun, as are the forest preserves, generator standards, subsidation of solar and wind power, EU and US foreign aid to Brazil to curb burning the Amazon, carbon taxes/credits, et al are all for promoting terrorism.
Lists like THESE do not exist.
Are you trolling or something?
What if I just don't care enough to fight the evil humans and evil human made climate change?
It appears Watt's paper is starting to be critiqued across the internet. So far, the criticisms are pretty much exactly what I said: How did you do this and why is it better? It appears from the paper that he's simply using raw data which is incorrect. We've talked about why the data is processed in order to remove geneities (basically this means differences in how the data was gathered IE equipment time of observation) and he's just ignoring the decades of peer reviewed science and statistics that state you have to do this.
Pretty poor effort, IMO. Honestly, he likely released it in this manner because there is no way it goes through a peer review process and survives in its current incarnation.
Watts has apparently come to the conclusion that the only way to make surface station quality come into play is to ignore all the data processes that have been in use for a long time now.
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 08-01-2012 at 03:49 PM.
Valid criticism. There are similarly valid reasons why Muller's work is held up in peer review.
I'll ask again...
What do you think I misinterpreted?
Manny....
What do you think I misunderstood.
Put up or retract your insinuation asshole.
Maybe the truth is that you know this is another piece that shows AGW cannot possible be as strong as your dogma dictates.
Hey, Manny! Please tell me you heard about this story.
CLICK ON IMAGE TO GO TO THINKPROGRESS.COM'S STORY
WOW. It’s so hot in Oklahoma that the streetlights are melting.
Today could be the hottest day in Oklahoma City history, 114 degrees.
Meanwhile, a senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe (R), is a major climate denier.
Photo from KFOR-TV
Good one, Yoni.
I'm surprised that Fuzzy or Boutons wasn't all over that story before you found it.
I had heard of the heat but I had not heard of anything melting. I leave the measuring of air temp by what melts to idiots like WC.
But, that must have been some global warming they had there in Oklahoma eh, Manny?I had heard of the heat but I had not heard of anything melting. I leave the measuring of air temp by what melts to idiots like WC.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
